It was far from beautiful flowing football at Inverness yesterday but the players raised the tempo sufficiently to get the result. Leigh Griffiths scored a classic poacher’s goal. He missed plenty against Kilmarnock and Ajax but that’s part of the territory of being a striker.
I was delighted to see Carlton Cole make his first appearance for the club, and for anyone since last season. His first touch could have resulted in a goal but his sheer body mass caused sufficient panic in the Inverness defence that a goal resulted soon enough. There’s a lot of work ahead as Carlton looks to get match fit but he’s exactly the kind of foil we’ve missed this season.
For all the Zonal Marking Detesters……… We’re now man-to-man and we’re still conceding headers in front of goal. The problem was not resolved with the switch to man-to-man. Defending corner kicks requires a physicality and alertness which we’ve missed all season. The sooner we fix this and get back to zonal the better.
On the subject of physicality, Dedryck, this is your hand. A brick wall should have been thrown up in front of Miles Storey at the Inverness goal. I accept we have unresolved issues at set-pieces and that we’ll lose goals as a consequence. Goals conceded on Thursday – a deflection-come-ricochet, and a breakaway, had little to do with the defence, but yesterday’s Inverness goal was just rank bad defending.
At Carfin on Friday I told Phil MacGiollaBhain that there was no way Dave King could weasel out of paying Mike Ashley his £5m, having said he would do so. Phil referred me to the “glib and shameless liar” part of King’s past and not to be so naive. He could have a point.
Ashley holds the aces here. Any attempt to ‘play’ him will fail.
499 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- »
St Stivs @ 11.06, very true. Lol
from RTC.
the never ending story
—————–
superb summary of it all
———————–
The news BDO will appeal the “Big Tax Case” (or the “so-called Big Tax Case” as many like to call it”) means this saga may yet have some twists and turns to it. Like many I yearn for the end of this process, but BDO do need to be seen to have exhausted all avenues to show an even handed approach to the interests of all creditors. Therefore news that they will seek leave to appeal is understandable. However, there are still many people who seem confused by what this was about. Myths have developed. Confusion reigns over whether Rangers’ conduct of the relevant tax cases is currently considered legal or illegal. Was it was tax avoidance or tax evasion, and so on. Most significantly, the campaign to have the farcical Nimmo Smith Commission findings set aside must be put on ice. However, the context of the tax cases and what effect they had on the demise of Rangers can, and should be, discussed.
To really understand this tale, and its impact on Rangers FC, we need to take another look at the ‘side-letter’ issue. For it was the decision to use, and then hide, these documents that lit the match that lead to Rangers’ self-immolation.
Between 1999-2003, faced with a resurgent and share-issue funded Celtic, Rangers started seeking an edge by lowering the taxes it had to pay on players’ wages. This started with the operation of a Discounted Options Scheme for players. In essence this was a ‘money box’ operation and Rangers began what would become a pattern of lying/forgetfulness (delete as you think applicable) towards HMRC and violating the rules of the Scottish football authorities. Reducing wages in a player’s official contract would result in reduced PAYE and NIC taxes. The rest of his promised wage would be paid with little or nothing deducted for tax through an elaborate ruse intended to disguise the fact that employment-related pay was being channeled to players. Football had become a cut-throat business and an out-of-form or injured player could not rely on a handshake to ensure that he got his full promised pay. So Rangers provided players using this scheme with secret ‘side-letters’ that promised additional payment.
Denying the existence of the side-letters was key to making the “Wee Tax Case” scheme appear to work. Lying/forgetting (delete whichever one you think is implausible) about the ‘side-letters’ was also key to the story of the “Big Tax Case”. It was this fundamental deceit/omission (delete as you see fit) regarding the ‘side-letters’ that would seal Rangers’ fate.
The ‘Big Tax Case’ dealt with Rangers’ part of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT) that used Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) from 2001 – 2011. A Mr. Black, an important and influential figure at Rangers during the period when the EBT scheme operated, was reported as saying at the First Tier Tax Tribunal “So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the Club to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable”. His reasoning seems pretty straightforward to everyone except the Scottish media and a cabal who appear to have been assembled by the SPL in 2012 to try kill off the idea of removing Rangers’ ill-gotten titles. Establishing Mr. Black’s identity and role in all of this would have been both important and trivially easy for the SPL’s Nimmo Smith Commission. Yet its findings overlooked Mr. Black’s submission. Some might believe this was regrettable.
Like with the ‘Wee Tax Case’, the ‘Big Tax Case’ relied upon the use of secret ‘side-letters’ in a laughable attempt to create a “non-contractual” promise, in writing, of money in exchange for services. It would have required a revolution in legal thinking to have the ‘side-letters’ considered as being anything other than binding contracts. Therefore, their existence had to remain a secret from both HMRC and the football authorities. The ‘side-letters’ promised- often specifying appearance pay and win bonuses- money that would be paid into an offshore trust. From their sub-trusts, players could “borrow” money but, in reality, never repay it.
With Rangers already ringing alarm bells for their debt levels and staggering losses during much of the affected period, the idea that more money would have been found to pay these players legally at the same level is just fatuous. There is no serious argument to be made that Rangers’ team would have been the same had they reduced the net paid to players by about 30% in some years.
On multiple occasions after 2004, HMRC asked Rangers if such side contracts existed. The denials from the club were forthright and frequent. No such ‘side-letters’ existed. Accordingly, these binding contractual documents were not sent to the SPL despite player registration and eligibility to play in league games being conditional upon all documentation related to all forms of payment to players- including even legitimate loans- being submitted for each player. (SPL rule D1.13). The existence of the ‘side-letters’ would not be exposed until the City of London police raided Ibrox in July 2007 as part of an unrelated suspected fraud investigation that did not result in any charges. Heel-dragging and evasive responses on how Rangers were operating the scheme continued.
For all the fuss and ink spilled discussing these subjects in the media, ‘the debate’ has always missed the significance of this issue.
What would have happened if…
To understand the importance of hiding the ‘side-letters’, let us look at the counter-factual case of what would have happened if directors of The Rangers Football Club plc (as it was then known) had fulfilled their statutory duties to ensure that the club was compliant with its tax and regulatory obligations. We can start by looking at the “Big Tax Case” in isolation and consider that HMRC explicitly asked for an explanation of how the EBT scheme operated at the start of 2004. This was the first of several points where Rangers’ representatives missed a golden chance to remove any doubt over the legality of the way they were operating the scheme. Instead, they dissembled, misled, and withheld. Had they answered honestly/completely (delete as you see fit), Rangers would have been presented with a tax demand immediately. Rangers would have certainly appealed the bill and a First Tier Tax Tribunal would have been scheduled. With fewer participants and much less documentation, such a tribunal would have been conducted quickly. Even allowing for appeals, had Rangers not misled HMRC and the Scottish football authorities, the nature of Rangers’ use of EBTs and ‘side-letters’ would have been a matter of public record by late 2004. Whether the scheme would have been determined to be legal or illegal at this time is beside the point. If ruled to be legal, every other club in Scotland would have been free to copy the scheme and the sporting advantage would then have been lost in 2004. Any investigation of these matters that ignores the difference in information available resulting from deliberately breaking the rules versus complying with them is not fit for purpose.
Had Rangers’ use of EBTs been ruled to be illegal in 2004. The club would then have faced a tax bill of about £12m. While not trivial, this amount would likely have been found at the time from the club’s or the Murray Group’s then substantial credit lines. In 2004, such an amount would not have presented much of a threat to the club’s existence. More significantly the £35m that would be later paid in net wages by Rangers through the EBT scheme from 2004-2011 would have been either been cut roughly in half or the club would have gone into insolvency much earlier than it did. Rangers were straining financial credulity as things were. Paying the money owed and then grossing-up the EBT wages for every player was not an option. Better players would have had to have been sold to reduce the wage bill and to cover costs for those who could not be moved on.
On 22nd May 2005, Rangers defeated Hibs at Easter Road to win the SPL by a solitary point with Nacho Novo scoring the only goal of the game. Every single Rangers player who participated in the game received payment through an EBT. Three transfer windows had closed since HMRC’s initial enquiries about the workings of the scheme. It is just blind denial to suggest that the same team would have been on that pitch that day had Rangers provided honest/complete (delete etc.) answers to the initial information requests. Game after game. Season after season. The results were driven by the players on the pitch who in turn were induced to be there, despite some hollow claims to the contrary today, by the their total net earnings.
What is absolutely clear is that the denial of the existence of the ‘side-letters’ gained Rangers a massive sporting advantage. Violating the SFA & SPL rules delayed the normal processes for determining the legality of the scheme. Violating SFA & SPL rules prevented other clubs from learning about the scheme through the normal tribunal process. However, the delay in revealing to HMRC how the scheme worked also set the financial trap that would make Rangers unworthy of investment. Additionally, the ‘Wee Tax Case’ would have been resolved over decade earlier had the workings of the scheme been revealed to HMRC on cue.
In the spleen venting and venom spitting that accompanied Rangers’ collapse, anger and rage has been sprayed in every direction except where it properly belongs. Boards of directors are formed explicitly to provide oversight over those with their hands on cash register. A good seat for the game and a chance to network in the Blue Room are not good reasons to accept a directorship at any company. Yet Rangers fans, and a lapdog media, have not held a single director of the now in-liquidation Rangers to account for their actions or inaction related to these tax schemes. Two of them have been handed the keys to Ibrox again. It must surely have taken extraordinary circumstances for Dave King and Paul Murray have been given so much trust on so little basis. Time will tell if the current wave of sycophancy towards a Rangers board is again ill-considered.
One of the few mistakes we made in analysing Rangers during the last four and a half years was in over-stating the role of the “Big Tax Case”. During David Murray’s tenure as effective owner of Rangers, the club lost a sum in excess of £140m. (depending on whether you want to include accounting tricks for asset revaluation or not). None of it came from David Murray personally. He organised the finest Tom Sawyer “painting the fence” trick in Scottish business history and convinced many fools to pay for his bombast. The biggest fool of all was the Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). About £70m of this incredible loss would be taken up by the bank directly or indirectly through Murray Group debt. (Though they would recover £18m of this through the sale of Rangers in 2011). The reality borne out of such horrendous losses is that Rangers were poised for collapse. After Lloyds effectively pulled the plug on the Murray Group credit lines on taking over HBOS in late 2008, it was just a question of when. The last years of automatic qualification for the UEFA Champions League group stages in 2009/10 and 2010/11 by virtue of being Scottish Premier League champions provided enough cash to stave off insolvency in those years. At the time Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain warned “We must however take cognisance of the fact that Scotland’s diminishing European co-efficient means that there is no longer automatic qualification to the Champions League from the SPL or the significant revenues participation brings.” Defeat to Malmo in the qualifying rounds for the 2011/12 tournament meant no Champions League group cash would be heading to Ibrox that season. (We do not have time here to go into the many questions as to whether Rangers should even have been granted a UEFA license by the SFA to play in European competitions in 2011/12). The die was cast on the 3rd of August 2011. Craig Whyte’s tenure had barely begun, but insolvency was already guaranteed before the end of the 2011/12 season. With more than a hint of irony, Rangers FC were able to complete the 2011/12 season for a single reason: money destined for HMRC as PAYE, NIC, and VAT was used as working capital to pay wages and other bills that could not be delayed. Had the club paid its way on-time, insolvency would have occurred around late October 2011. It is highly doubtful that the club could have completed almost an entire season in administration. Certainly, it would not have been possible to liquidate Rangers and form a new club mid-season and pretend it was the same club. Selling Nikica Jelavic for £5m in January 2012 provided the money to fund administration and complete the 2011/12 season. It seems improbable that we would be having the ‘same-club’ debate today other than for Craig Whyte’s diversion of taxes to keep the show on the road.
What role did the tax case(s) play in all of this? The most important point in this entire affair is that Rangers’ failure to disclose the ‘side-letters’ allowed the situation to build to a point where there would be no escape from the inevitable insolvency. The evasiveness over ‘side-letters’ meant that a CVA was always unlikely. The use of taxes collected in season 2011/12 as working capital just banged down the lid on the coffin and made liquidation a certainty. The window for saving Rangers was in 2004. With every passing season, David Murray’s reckless spending and his board’s failure to implement spending cuts, the tar pit that was waiting for Rangers just got deeper and stickier. Only in the past few weeks have we seen the emergence of a most gentle repudiation of the disastrous David Murray years in the Scottish press. Scottish football has been slowly recovering from the effects of trying to compete with Murray’s ways. Yet there are some in positions of supposed influence at Hampden who seem to be actively trying to recreate this period rather than ensure it can never happen again.
This project began out of incredulity that the biggest story in the history of Scottish sport, the impending insolvency of Rangers FC, was not getting press coverage. This blog had one primary objective- stimulate a mainstream media discussion of what was really happening. That objective was achieved, briefly, in the summer of 2012. I thank all of you who contributed and assisted with making this possible. Sadly, any hope that the Scottish mainstream media would find redemption is long gone. Faced with crashing circulations and declining radio advertising rates, they have retreated to the comfort of familiar ways. If anything the press have become even more uni-polar and afraid to speak truth to Rangers’ often bellicose fans. It is perhaps unfair to criticise them on this last point from the comfort of anonymity.
This is not a subject where people will be swayed by persuasive argument. Almost anyone who cares about these matters will already have a fully formed opinion that will now be closed to reasoning. So the arguments will continue to rage on into futile infinity. However, anyone who can still be objective would be able to see that Rangers died by its own hand. What should have been a moderately important tussle with HMRC in 2004 festered into a calamity by the actions and inaction of those who ran the club.
Tom Boyd is better than SuperSutton on 30th November 2015 9:41 pm – See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/one-for-the-zonal-detesters-playing-ashley/comment-page-7/#comments
==================================
Come on, mate – what utter pish.
I told you – I never once mentioned specifically corners. And I didn’t.
You seem to have mixed up Paul’s quote with mine and gone off on one.
Pure riddy.
Now, you should own up to that. ;))
MY post regarded MY opinion of preferring man-to-man over zonal for the positive aspects of forcing players into taking more responsibility.
MY post, from inside MY heid, was not exclusively dealing with corners but was an overall opinion of zonal defending against man-to-man; I wrote it, so I can confirm that…
Soooo, I prefer man-to-man marking, but can see a mix of both being best suited to our younger defenders in certain games.
Again, you can argue this could even be examined on a micro-level to determine suitability to each player depending on their careers to date; ergo, have they been coached primarily in zonal or vice-versa.
Donpepe…
First of, I like the moniker, well said in what you posted, some have disagreeing opinions on here and opine them, open to all, as Paul67 says.
So I suppose Tony D has every right to come on and say his piece.
You rightly came on and defended the slanderous comments that have been coming the CT trust way on here.
HH
Donpepe I’m afraid the poster you mentioned has been spreading this nonsense for some time. His anti intellectual stance on everything defence of reprehensible board behaviour have been prevelant on this site for some time. He will not engage with debate not even attempt to make any sense.
It is probably best to ignore him, however infuriating.
TRACTORBHOY on 30TH NOVEMBER 2015 11:12 PM
Saint Sivs
There was nothing wrong with the wee mans left foot as the ball whizzed into the dead clubs net in ’67.
–
like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYCKUEemcio
TET, that is a great read on R tax case
Thought I’d post it, so here you are Bhoys and Ghirls
The news BDO will appeal the “Big Tax Case” (or the “so-called Big Tax Case” as many like to call it”) means this saga may yet have some twists and turns to it. Like many I yearn for the end of this process, but BDO do need to be seen to have exhausted all avenues to show an even handed approach to the interests of all creditors. Therefore news that they will seek leave to appeal is understandable. However, there are still many people who seem confused by what this was about. Myths have developed. Confusion reigns over whether Rangers’ conduct of the relevant tax cases is currently considered legal or illegal. Was it was tax avoidance or tax evasion, and so on. Most significantly, the campaign to have the farcical Nimmo Smith Commission findings set aside must be put on ice. However, the context of the tax cases and what effect they had on the demise of Rangers can, and should be, discussed.
To really understand this tale, and its impact on Rangers FC, we need to take another look at the ‘side-letter’ issue. For it was the decision to use, and then hide, these documents that lit the match that lead to Rangers’ self-immolation.
Between 1999-2003, faced with a resurgent and share-issue funded Celtic, Rangers started seeking an edge by lowering the taxes it had to pay on players’ wages. This started with the operation of a Discounted Options Scheme for players. In essence this was a ‘money box’ operation and Rangers began what would become a pattern of lying/forgetfulness (delete as you think applicable) towards HMRC and violating the rules of the Scottish football authorities. Reducing wages in a player’s official contract would result in reduced PAYE and NIC taxes. The rest of his promised wage would be paid with little or nothing deducted for tax through an elaborate ruse intended to disguise the fact that employment-related pay was being channeled to players. Football had become a cut-throat business and an out-of-form or injured player could not rely on a handshake to ensure that he got his full promised pay. So Rangers provided players using this scheme with secret ‘side-letters’ that promised additional payment.
Denying the existence of the side-letters was key to making the “Wee Tax Case” scheme appear to work. Lying/forgetting (delete whichever one you think is implausible) about the ‘side-letters’ was also key to the story of the “Big Tax Case”. It was this fundamental deceit/omission (delete as you see fit) regarding the ‘side-letters’ that would seal Rangers’ fate.
The ‘Big Tax Case’ dealt with Rangers’ part of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT) that used Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) from 2001 – 2011. A Mr. Black, an important and influential figure at Rangers during the period when the EBT scheme operated, was reported as saying at the First Tier Tax Tribunal “So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the Club to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable”. His reasoning seems pretty straightforward to everyone except the Scottish media and a cabal who appear to have been assembled by the SPL in 2012 to try kill off the idea of removing Rangers’ ill-gotten titles. Establishing Mr. Black’s identity and role in all of this would have been both important and trivially easy for the SPL’s Nimmo Smith Commission. Yet its findings overlooked Mr. Black’s submission. Some might believe this was regrettable.
Like with the ‘Wee Tax Case’, the ‘Big Tax Case’ relied upon the use of secret ‘side-letters’ in a laughable attempt to create a “non-contractual” promise, in writing, of money in exchange for services. It would have required a revolution in legal thinking to have the ‘side-letters’ considered as being anything other than binding contracts. Therefore, their existence had to remain a secret from both HMRC and the football authorities. The ‘side-letters’ promised- often specifying appearance pay and win bonuses- money that would be paid into an offshore trust. From their sub-trusts, players could “borrow” money but, in reality, never repay it.
With Rangers already ringing alarm bells for their debt levels and staggering losses during much of the affected period, the idea that more money would have been found to pay these players legally at the same level is just fatuous. There is no serious argument to be made that Rangers’ team would have been the same had they reduced the net paid to players by about 30% in some years.
On multiple occasions after 2004, HMRC asked Rangers if such side contracts existed. The denials from the club were forthright and frequent. No such ‘side-letters’ existed. Accordingly, these binding contractual documents were not sent to the SPL despite player registration and eligibility to play in league games being conditional upon all documentation related to all forms of payment to players- including even legitimate loans- being submitted for each player. (SPL rule D1.13). The existence of the ‘side-letters’ would not be exposed until the City of London police raided Ibrox in July 2007 as part of an unrelated suspected fraud investigation that did not result in any charges. Heel-dragging and evasive responses on how Rangers were operating the scheme continued.
For all the fuss and ink spilled discussing these subjects in the media, ‘the debate’ has always missed the significance of this issue.
What would have happened if…
To understand the importance of hiding the ‘side-letters’, let us look at the counter-factual case of what would have happened if directors of The Rangers Football Club plc (as it was then known) had fulfilled their statutory duties to ensure that the club was compliant with its tax and regulatory obligations. We can start by looking at the “Big Tax Case” in isolation and consider that HMRC explicitly asked for an explanation of how the EBT scheme operated at the start of 2004. This was the first of several points where Rangers’ representatives missed a golden chance to remove any doubt over the legality of the way they were operating the scheme. Instead, they dissembled, misled, and withheld. Had they answered honestly/completely (delete as you see fit), Rangers would have been presented with a tax demand immediately. Rangers would have certainly appealed the bill and a First Tier Tax Tribunal would have been scheduled. With fewer participants and much less documentation, such a tribunal would have been conducted quickly. Even allowing for appeals, had Rangers not misled HMRC and the Scottish football authorities, the nature of Rangers’ use of EBTs and ‘side-letters’ would have been a matter of public record by late 2004. Whether the scheme would have been determined to be legal or illegal at this time is beside the point. If ruled to be legal, every other club in Scotland would have been free to copy the scheme and the sporting advantage would then have been lost in 2004. Any investigation of these matters that ignores the difference in information available resulting from deliberately breaking the rules versus complying with them is not fit for purpose.
Had Rangers’ use of EBTs been ruled to be illegal in 2004. The club would then have faced a tax bill of about £12m. While not trivial, this amount would likely have been found at the time from the club’s or the Murray Group’s then substantial credit lines. In 2004, such an amount would not have presented much of a threat to the club’s existence. More significantly the £35m that would be later paid in net wages by Rangers through the EBT scheme from 2004-2011 would have been either been cut roughly in half or the club would have gone into insolvency much earlier than it did. Rangers were straining financial credulity as things were. Paying the money owed and then grossing-up the EBT wages for every player was not an option. Better players would have had to have been sold to reduce the wage bill and to cover costs for those who could not be moved on.
On 22nd May 2005, Rangers defeated Hibs at Easter Road to win the SPL by a solitary point with Nacho Novo scoring the only goal of the game. Every single Rangers player who participated in the game received payment through an EBT. Three transfer windows had closed since HMRC’s initial enquiries about the workings of the scheme. It is just blind denial to suggest that the same team would have been on that pitch that day had Rangers provided honest/complete (delete etc.) answers to the initial information requests. Game after game. Season after season. The results were driven by the players on the pitch who in turn were induced to be there, despite some hollow claims to the contrary today, by the their total net earnings.
What is absolutely clear is that the denial of the existence of the ‘side-letters’ gained Rangers a massive sporting advantage. Violating the SFA & SPL rules delayed the normal processes for determining the legality of the scheme. Violating SFA & SPL rules prevented other clubs from learning about the scheme through the normal tribunal process. However, the delay in revealing to HMRC how the scheme worked also set the financial trap that would make Rangers unworthy of investment. Additionally, the ‘Wee Tax Case’ would have been resolved over decade earlier had the workings of the scheme been revealed to HMRC on cue.
In the spleen venting and venom spitting that accompanied Rangers’ collapse, anger and rage has been sprayed in every direction except where it properly belongs. Boards of directors are formed explicitly to provide oversight over those with their hands on cash register. A good seat for the game and a chance to network in the Blue Room are not good reasons to accept a directorship at any company. Yet Rangers fans, and a lapdog media, have not held a single director of the now in-liquidation Rangers to account for their actions or inaction related to these tax schemes. Two of them have been handed the keys to Ibrox again. It must surely have taken extraordinary circumstances for Dave King and Paul Murray have been given so much trust on so little basis. Time will tell if the current wave of sycophancy towards a Rangers board is again ill-considered.
One of the few mistakes we made in analysing Rangers during the last four and a half years was in over-stating the role of the “Big Tax Case”. During David Murray’s tenure as effective owner of Rangers, the club lost a sum in excess of £140m. (depending on whether you want to include accounting tricks for asset revaluation or not). None of it came from David Murray personally. He organised the finest Tom Sawyer “painting the fence” trick in Scottish business history and convinced many fools to pay for his bombast. The biggest fool of all was the Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). About £70m of this incredible loss would be taken up by the bank directly or indirectly through Murray Group debt. (Though they would recover £18m of this through the sale of Rangers in 2011). The reality borne out of such horrendous losses is that Rangers were poised for collapse. After Lloyds effectively pulled the plug on the Murray Group credit lines on taking over HBOS in late 2008, it was just a question of when. The last years of automatic qualification for the UEFA Champions League group stages in 2009/10 and 2010/11 by virtue of being Scottish Premier League champions provided enough cash to stave off insolvency in those years. At the time Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain warned “We must however take cognisance of the fact that Scotland’s diminishing European co-efficient means that there is no longer automatic qualification to the Champions League from the SPL or the significant revenues participation brings.” Defeat to Malmo in the qualifying rounds for the 2011/12 tournament meant no Champions League group cash would be heading to Ibrox that season. (We do not have time here to go into the many questions as to whether Rangers should even have been granted a UEFA license by the SFA to play in European competitions in 2011/12). The die was cast on the 3rd of August 2011. Craig Whyte’s tenure had barely begun, but insolvency was already guaranteed before the end of the 2011/12 season. With more than a hint of irony, Rangers FC were able to complete the 2011/12 season for a single reason: money destined for HMRC as PAYE, NIC, and VAT was used as working capital to pay wages and other bills that could not be delayed. Had the club paid its way on-time, insolvency would have occurred around late October 2011. It is highly doubtful that the club could have completed almost an entire season in administration. Certainly, it would not have been possible to liquidate Rangers and form a new club mid-season and pretend it was the same club. Selling Nikica Jelavic for £5m in January 2012 provided the money to fund administration and complete the 2011/12 season. It seems improbable that we would be having the ‘same-club’ debate today other than for Craig Whyte’s diversion of taxes to keep the show on the road.
What role did the tax case(s) play in all of this? The most important point in this entire affair is that Rangers’ failure to disclose the ‘side-letters’ allowed the situation to build to a point where there would be no escape from the inevitable insolvency. The evasiveness over ‘side-letters’ meant that a CVA was always unlikely. The use of taxes collected in season 2011/12 as working capital just banged down the lid on the coffin and made liquidation a certainty. The window for saving Rangers was in 2004. With every passing season, David Murray’s reckless spending and his board’s failure to implement spending cuts, the tar pit that was waiting for Rangers just got deeper and stickier. Only in the past few weeks have we seen the emergence of a most gentle repudiation of the disastrous David Murray years in the Scottish press. Scottish football has been slowly recovering from the effects of trying to compete with Murray’s ways. Yet there are some in positions of supposed influence at Hampden who seem to be actively trying to recreate this period rather than ensure it can never happen again.
This project began out of incredulity that the biggest story in the history of Scottish sport, the impending insolvency of Rangers FC, was not getting press coverage. This blog had one primary objective- stimulate a mainstream media discussion of what was really happening. That objective was achieved, briefly, in the summer of 2012. I thank all of you who contributed and assisted with making this possible. Sadly, any hope that the Scottish mainstream media would find redemption is long gone. Faced with crashing circulations and declining radio advertising rates, they have retreated to the comfort of familiar ways. If anything the press have become even more uni-polar and afraid to speak truth to Rangers’ often bellicose fans. It is perhaps unfair to criticise them on this last point from the comfort of anonymity.
This is not a subject where people will be swayed by persuasive argument. Almost anyone who cares about these matters will already have a fully formed opinion that will now be closed to reasoning. So the arguments will continue to rage on into futile infinity. However, anyone who can still be objective would be able to see that Rangers died by its own hand. What should have been a moderately important tussle with HMRC in 2004 festered into a calamity by the actions and inaction of those who ran the club.
7 minutes of wonderfulness
herrara and james bond watching jinky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL2YQxQhMRo
Ooooooops just seen St Stivs has posted the story
Sorry Bhoys
And just another to thank Don Pepe, for coming on to support his Stormtrooper HT :-)
Only kidding now
Hail Hail and off oot, so Nytol
Saint Stivs….
Jeeso some of us have work tomorro :)
dOn Pepe.
Great,post.
Please keep up the good work in supporting the Celtic support and the ethos of the club.
acgr if yer lurking, had a major sesh on Satirday where a some so called whisky experts got to taste what was left of your brilliant whiskys. Verdict. Craig better than linkwid. I still prefer the local dram.
Early the morn so night night tims everywhere.
HH
HH
cowiebhoy
copy elephant
Rangers Tax Cases’ are like buses.
Bournes
Was it you that put up the goals of the seasons footage earlie?. If so. Amazing. If not thanks to whoever.
HH
10 mins of celtic v dukla prague ecsf 1967
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_LrOkEIMoI
if cowiebhoy comes on posting something about this dont believe him.
bring back ACGR.
Donpepe, the Trust might now be accused of being a mafia family now going by your blog name Lol
Good night all and sleep well
Saint Stivs
Thats the one, what a genius.
I was there when he also scored the winner at the Crumbledome with a heeder.
Oh well, that’s two wee tims that have flounced now…bmcuw, acgr, get yer erchie back on,.
Going to my bed with a foot like a camels humph.feckin goat….oops predictive…only Huns go to bed with goats….gout. :(
BAD WILLIE WALLACE.
hearts 3 celtic 3 scottish cup 1966.
great watch.
off to bed , keep it lit.
look at the celtic support in that crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cXH3fAxnsk
Don Pepe
In truth I’m mortified you’ve had to post on the subject.
Keep up the good work.
HH jamesgang
DON PEPE
Very well stated.
Watched Lenny’s Blton tonight, 5/2 the draw made me happy, though rooting for Bolton, who could do with a scorer. Heard through the grapevine that we are signing Carlton’s cousin as central defender in the January sales. Seen clips of him on you tube, Hugh Jarsoll by name. Takes a bit of beating!
HH
ps.
watch bertie auld, moravcik must have based his game on him when he grew up in the nitra csc
and
how bloody rubbish was our defence at free kicks and corners,
not zonal marking
silent movie
looks like a historic game –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xnulhuyjzA
I am completely and utterly apposed to title stripping it is not the way forward.
We need to look at title awarding. We should be awarded what we rightfully won.
Change the narrative.
We want titles rightfully awarded.
Leftbackagain
I don’t want them.
If they haven’t won them on the park then neither have we.
Asterisk CSC
DONPEPE on 30TH NOVEMBER 2015 10:30 PM
“Let me make it absolutely clear from the start I nor any other member of the Celtic Trust are any kind of stormtroopers and I take real exception to the extremely ill informed poster who described his fellow Celtic supporters in this unacceptable way.”
===================================================================
Do you also take exception to the ” unacceptable” treatment to which this poster has been subjected?
======================================================================
“I am at a loss to understand the virulence of his attitude to the Trust. What have we done to warrant the incessant sniping and snide remarks.”
=======================================================
The poster,I feel, sees the Celtic Trust as a divisive and damaging influence on Celtic.
I certainly do.
Why ,as a Celtic supporter of longer standing than yourself,would he NOT feel compelled to express his concerns.
Incidentally.I hope the shocking and outrageous insults directed towards him have not been from members of the trust.
If they have,then I would hope you have the decency to dissociate yourself from them.
====================================================
“We are longstanding supporters of Celtic I attended my first game at Cathkin Park in 1963.We want Celtic to be run as it was intended to be in accord with its founding principles but of course as a 21st century European football club.”
====================================================================================
Your interpretation of it`s founding principles.
As it was intended to be in 1888
=============================================================================
“We see Celtic as a Living Wage employer embodying those principles.This nonsense about theTrust being politically motivated was mildly amusing at first but now is becoming tiresome not really impacting on the good work the Trust does on behalf of individual Celtic supporters eg the OBAF and Amsterdam but maybe stopping Celtic supporters who might want to join us and work with the Trust from doing so because of the lies being written about us here.”
==================================================================
“We see Celtic as a Living Wage employer ………………………”
How many is “We” ?
And how many Celtic supporters are members of the Trust ?
Do you give any consideration to Celtic supporters who feel that this is a matter for the Board of Celtic to consider,without the interference of ANY fringe group.
If not,why not?
———————————————————————————————————————
You suggest that your organisation is not political.
Is the minimum wage a political issue?
Is the living wage a political issue?
How many employees of Celtic voted in favour of the interference of the Celtic Trust in their wages and conditions?
———————————————————————————————————————————
Finally,Joe,why do I ,as a longer time Celtic supporter, have to listen to opinions expressed in the media by members of the Celtic Trust ,which in no way reflect my own feelings on the subject of Celtic.
The media,as you know,portray these opinions as being representative of Celtic supporters views.
You and I know that they are not.
What or who gave the Celtic Trust the right to be spokespeople for Celtic supporters ?
Because that`s what you purport to be.
Do you also take exception to the ” unacceptable” treatment to which this poster has been subjected?
If the said poster was given unacceptable treatment paul67 would have stepped in. He gives it so he should take it. Troll is the most common reference,, hardly unacceptable to one who calls others names daily. It’s words on a blog,,hardly unacceptable by any stretch.
The poster,I feel, sees the Celtic Trust as a divisive and damaging influence on Celtic.
I certainly do.
Hes entitled to his own opinion. If he doesnt like them dont join. The blog,,I feel, sees the poster as divisive and damaging influence to the blog. I certainly do.
Why ,as a Celtic supporter of longer standing than yourself,would he NOT feel compelled to express his concerns.
By all means express concern,,by all means. But would it not be best to take your concerns to the trust ? Surely its best to approach the trust directly instead of denigrating them on a blog not affiliated with them?
Incidentally.I hope the shocking and outrageous insults directed towards him have not been from members of the trust. If they have,then I would hope you have the decency to dissociate yourself from them.
We’ve went from unacceptable to shocking and outrageous? Did he get a kicking or something? That would be shocking and outrageous. Were talking about words on a blog he chooses to visit. Hardly shocking and outrageous. The trust have no right to police their members words on a blog,,nor should they. If members of the trust have exchanged views with the said poster in their own time its nought to do with the trust.
“We see Celtic as a Living Wage employer ………………………”
How many is “We” ?
And how many Celtic supporters are members of the Trust ?
What’s that got to do with anything? 1 or 10000, what’s the difference ?
Do you give any consideration to Celtic supporters who feel that this is a matter for the Board of Celtic to consider,without the interference of ANY fringe group.
If not,why not?
Neither here nor there,,the trust feel it is right so they are trying to have it introduced. Judging by the agms and blogs/podcasts many feel its the right thing to do. The board could have introduced it themselves but haven’t. As shareholders the trust have a right to question their boards decisions and propose motions to the board. Their only consideration should be their members wishes for our club as thats who they represent. They are a collective of shareholders not a fringe group and have rights to question,,that’s not interference its the way a PLC works.
You suggest that your organisation is not political. Is the minimum wage a political issue? Is the living wage a political issue?
No they are both social issues.
How many employees of Celtic voted in favour of the interference of the Celtic Trust in their wages and conditions?
None as there was no vote.
Finally,Joe,why do I ,as a longer time Celtic supporter, have to listen to opinions expressed in the media by members of the Celtic Trust ,which in no way reflect my own feelings on the subject of Celtic.
The media,as you know,portray these opinions as being representative of Celtic supporters views.
You and I know that they are not.
You don’t have to listen to the media. What they portray is their own business, not the trusts.
What or who gave the Celtic Trust the right to be spokespeople for Celtic supporters ?
Because that`s what you purport to be.
I’ve never seen them express that. There’s many groups of supporters,,aicsc,,Celtic foundation,,kano foundation etc. With a lot of groups one group couldn’t claim to represent everyone,,nor I believe have they. How about backing up your words and showing us when they purported the right to be the spokesperson for Celtic supporters.
UTLR
Sandman.
Ok, let’s agree that you are referring not only to corners. And therefore examine your assertion that we are shipping barrow loads of goals.
I don’t concur. And these stats would indicate that we really aren’t doing to badly defensively.
————–
GEORDIE MUNRO on 30TH NOVEMBER 2015 4:55 PM
Lies, damned lies and statistics,
This season, in the league our bombscare defence and ‘wan up front’ have managed 41 goals for and 12 against after 16 games.
Last season our arguably better defence had conceded 10 and we had scored 33 at same stage.
The year previous, lennys rocks who broke shut out records had scored 38 and conceded 12 after 16 games.
——-
You don’t so mad to me, Mahe.
Mahe the Madman
Well said that man.
Mane…,
Forget expecting any answers or evidence, you post will be ignored and he will be back to pushing his lies tomorrow, it’s how trolls work, innit.
Mahe even
Good morning friends from a rainy, bleak, windy and rather desolate looking East Kilbride.
Some great reading back this morning. It’s the 1st of the month, we’re top of the league and I love the Celtic.
Hail Hail
TBJ from last night….. There’s two of us!! Ha ha :-)
Canamalar,,I know I know but when good men do nothing evil will triumph. I’d like to contact you,,could you share your email? Hail Hail
Mahe..,
Stick yahoo or hotmail dotcom ate the end of my name and yer in
I see that roaster Cowiebhoy clogged the blog by reposting the tax article again
Ruined my commute this morning
On the other hand
Thanks macjay , I am now enquiring about how to become a member of the trust ☘☘☘